Stan Lester Developments

education and training systems

 

welcome

projects

Dr Stan Lester

► professions

clients

► publications

 

 

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: newlogo

 

Professional qualifications in the

conservation of cultural heritage

 

This site contains information on qualification developments managed by the Institute of Conservation (Icon), the UK professional body for the conservation of material heritage.

 

  Accredited Conservator-Restorer

 

  The Conservation Technician Qualification

 

  Progression Escalator

 

  ECCO Competences

 

  Related journal articles and reports

 

  Institute of Conservation (external site)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accredited Conservator-Restorer

ACR is the professional qualification (qualified status) for conservators in the UK.  ACR status is based on the ability to practise to a proficient and ethical standard, and it is awarded following a rigorous professional practice assessment (the PACR process).  Further details of the assessment process, including professional standards, application documents and guidance, are on the Icon PACR site.  The 2007 professional standards are also available here.

Stan Lester’s article “Putting conservation’s professional qualification into context” (The Conservator, vol 31, pp5-15, 2008) discusses some of the points raised in the 2007 review and locates PACR in the context of other professional qualifying processes and qualification frameworks.

 

The Conservation Technician Qualification

The Conservation Technician Qualification (CTQ) was developed and trialled between 2007-10, and formally launched by Icon in 2012.  It has now been merged into the Level 5 Diploma in Heritage Conservation.

 

The Conservation Escalator

This is a schematic diagram showing progression through the UK (E,W&NI) qualification levels in conservation.

  Download or view (pdf file).

 

ECCO Competences for Access to the Conservation-Restoration Profession

ECCO have produced a competence map for the profession.  Unfortunately it is only available in printed form:  see the links below.

  View introduction and ordering details  (ECCO web site)

  Hutchings & Corr 2011 – article explaining the development and rationale behind the map (pdf file)

  Comments on the ECCO competences document (pdf file)

 

Selected papers on PACR and CTQ

The following articles by Stan Lester are all in pdf format and under 100kb. 

  The Conservation Technician Qualification:  an employer-led development,” Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 14 (1), 43-55 (2009) 

  Putting conservation’s professional qualification in context,” The Conservator  31, 5-15 (2008)

  Becoming a profession: conservation in the UK," Journal of the Society of Archivists 23 (1), 87-94 (2002)

  The Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers: developing a competence-based professional assessment system," Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education  24 (4), 411-423 (2000)

  Professional bodies, CPD and informal learning: the case of conservation," Continuing Professional Development 2 (4), 110-121 (1999).

 

ACR/PACR in context

The qualifying process and standards in conservation are discussed in the following papers on professional standards and entry-routes:

  Association and self-regulation in smaller UK professions, Avista Press (2014)

  Professional versus occupational perspectives on work competence”, Research in Post-Compulsory Education 19 (3), 276–286 (2014)

  Professional standards, competence and capability”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 4 (1), 31-43 (2014)

  Professional competence standards and frameworks in the UK”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (1), 38-52 (2014)

  Routes to qualified status:  practices and trends among UK professional bodies,” Studies in Higher Education  34 (2), 223-236 (2009).

 

  Back to top